This article takes all the troubles to explore to whom the unmanned islets have the closest connections in respects of history, culture,fishery, and administration. It goes too far as to reference to Emperor Qing Shihuang's immortal wish, and too remote as to Japanese karate.

It seems to me that geographic factors should be taken into first consideration when it comes to the establishment of ownership of uninhabited islands, and that if there are binding treaties among states concerned that have explicitly decided the ownership, then the treaties shall prevail.

I just want to remind: diaoyu belongs to Okinawa or Taiwan? It is not up to a single fishman in Okinawa to decide! You should ask fishmen from Taiwan too! And there is research on this issue, or read the thesis of Ma Yingjiu when he studies in the US of A!

(1) The China-Japan-S Korea negotiations for a Super Trade Block had been on going for the past 10 years or so

(2) And just as these countries senior ministers announced recently that everything is more or less finalized --- WHAM BAM --- Jap Governor ISHIHARA announced at American Carnegie Institute that Tokyo would buy the DIAYUTAI Islands and develop it

EVEN a child can see that ISHIHARA acted on behalf of anti-China-Japan-S Korea SUPER trade Block to derail the whole project

Never mind that it may lead to China-Japan breaking off diplomatic ties or even going to war with each other

BIG BROTHER do not want to see the China-Japan-S Korea Super Trade Block becoming a reality

AND the Great White "God" had spoken --- and thus ---there will be NO such Super Trade Block --- "Can't allow these 3 Yellow Perils to form their own little Trade Block === no sireee ..."

The Little stooge had dutifully carried out its master's orders == in order to provoke China and derail any such China-Japan-S.Korea Trading block, being ever formed

yes, the whole idea about daioyu island is to pit japan against china as part of china containment scheme. it's very apparent with the us flip flop positions from the onset to flame things up.
.
with 'ASEAN + 3', 'currency swap between china, s. korea and japan' getting more into shape, japan had been drawing closer to china and that's a no no for the us. so japan has to pull back because japan is still a vassal state. thus the diaoyu island thing.
.
this gave the right winger of japan the chance to regroup themselves with anti-china slogans and aggressive stance over the islands. it jives with the us containment posturing and the two clicked like clock work.
.
what the us did not know (at least not publicly) is that japan is taking advantage of this us policy and hijacking it to rearm and re-nuke itself, not so much against china or koreas, but to bid its time to eventually get out of the present choke hold held by the collar of us stationing of bases and troops in japan.
.
normally one would welcome japan as a free and independent nation, but with its unrepentant mentality of its past war crimes and its imperialist ideology and saber rattling aggressiveness of the preset, no peace loving nation or people on earth including china and koreas would want to see the us forces leaving or pulling out of japan now or any time soon, perhaps another 75 years at the very least?

"no peace loving nation or people on earth including china and koreas would want to see the us forces leaving or pulling out of japan now or any time soon, perhaps another 75 years at the very least?"

Now, Japan's neighbors all know about the trick of keeping peace by force in the region. With the decline and probably retreat of US, a new order has to be established sooner or later. I don't know how have you figured out a long time of 75 years? By then, the regional land dispute might happen on the moon instead.

This is all an incredibly elaborate attempt on the part of the Economist to avoid being blocked from China by suggesting that the chinese government has a legitimate presence on these islands, or anywhere else for that matter. If the Economist feels such pressure, almost no one can resist China's corrupting influence. That influence is the greatest threat to a decent and honorable future for humanity. We all know that there is only one force able to counter such a powerful and amoral corruption. But will the U.S. be able to pull it off? We must all hope it can. If anything can bring about national unity in the U.S., the ability of the Chinese government to destroy the achievements of the Enlightenment where they have been planted is it.

You talked of "enlightenment" by Europeans--- do you mean like --- the genocide on the Mayans, Incas, Red Indians, the Aussie Abos, the Canadian Natives ?? Or the Anti-Miscegenation Laws that still exists in 3 in American States? The Nazi Extermination of 6 million Jews ? The Rape and plunder of the Third World by European Colonial powers for 300 years.? How about the forcing of opium on the Chinese people ?

I have also occasionally wondered if TE takes it's impartiality a tad too far on the subject of the South China & East China Sea disputes.

However, the number of articles on the subject (there must have been at least 10 in the past year) serves to draw much attention to the subject.

If it was TE's aim to obfuscate, it would be more effective to simply not mention the subject at all: then the opposing states could roll out their propaganda without a balancing view from TE.

As it is, TE confronts these issues head on, and (generally speaking) provides as balanced a view as such a complex topic allows.

Where TE falls short imho is on more obscure areas of SEAsia such as Burma, where this publication's understanding of the history and convoluted politics of the country can appear somewhat shallow.

That would be rectified by the recruitment of a scholar/journalist with a Burma background. Such a specialist is likely to be indispensible in the near future anyway, so they might as well place the ad now.

Alternatively, a stroll around SOAS's hallowed halls should turn up a few candidates...

"Has any of the Chinese governments signed a treaty to secede Diaoyu Island to Japan? Qing? Republic of China? People Republic of China?"

None that I know of; and in reality, the islands have escaped explicit mention in about every policy move.

Possibly though Taiwan has an avenue to claiming the Senkakus and Diaoyus based the Treaty of Shimonoseki and 1952 Taipei Treaty.

1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki: "Article 2 - China cedes to Japan... (b) The island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa"

(the key word is appertaining;and maybe the PRC is getting a clue here, since some geologic/topological points are being pushed now; think the Economist article mentioned them too, in terms of the side of the trench/depression the Senkakus/Diaoyus sit on)

1952 Taipei Treaty: "Article 4 - It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war."

(notice the word "agreements"; and actually article 10 of the San Francisco Treaty may provide similar interpretation)

Would be interesting to hear sober viewpoints of Chinese commentators on this language, interpretation and line of arguement.

Essentially, Japan gave up everything to the Kuomingtang regardless of formal or informal agreements; the old treaty of 1894 indirectly encompasses the islands

Thank you Michael, for your research. I am a Chinese American. Even though I try to be objective my opinions should be treated as biased.

In my view, the past treaties and understandings between the two governments provide ample "legal" ground for China to claim Diaoyu Islands as Chinese. The recent Japanese activities forced China to RE-act. Someone, I meant the Japanese side, seriously miscalculated, in trying to change the status quo, in light of the US "Asia pivot". Now that the status quo is no more, China is entitled to pursue its interest without restraints of previous understandings between the involved parties.

Let me give my frank opinion. Japan is in a no-win situation in the long run. Even if China should lose a naval battle against Japan, judging from my understanding, it would not be the end of story. It may just pave the way for an endless conflict.

Why didn't Japan accept Chinese olive branch to co-develop the natural resources around Diaoyu? To me the previous Chinese position was more than reasonable.

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

However, his relation of events of early 1895 seem to suggest a more postive attitude on the part of the Home Ministry and the cabinet towards claiming the islands.

Michael, when people told you the source of info, you don't want to search for it, but you want to redirect people to other things. The document is in the link you posted. I could not copy it as this program does not allow me to paste into here. Remember, there have been a lot of people who retrieved those docs and were able to read them and comprehend them. Do you have problems with that?

The Meijing government knew that those islands were named by the Chinese, administered by the Chinese, and demarcated by the Chinese. That's why it took them 10 years to annec them into the map of Japan. And they did it secretly.

Why can't give The Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands to Taiwan.
1. Japan is an ally of Taiwan
2. US is an ally of Taiwan
3. China will be happy with Taiwan.
Problem solved
Any comments from Japanese and Americans?

Wouldn't such a move undermine the one-country stance, both of the PRC and countries giving recognition of such an assignment of teritory to Taiwan?

If it did happened, it could represent an interesting move on the part of the PRC to either:
1) Bavarianize the Taiwan issue - still push for one country, two systems, but granting almost complet independence to Taiwan in reality)
2) Finlandize the Taiwan issue - start moving towards conceding independence of Taiwan (like the Soviets did after WWI, with the Duchy of Finland splitting), sealed by a goody, in this case the Senkakus/Daioyus, but so long as Taiwan plays ball with the PRC (like how the Soviets allowed independent Finnish neutrality after WWII)

Diaoyu Islands used to belong to China but was taken by Japan in 1895 after China was defeated. The following article provides more historical facts on how Japan sneaked in and took possession of Diaoyu Islands:

[The reason why the Japanese government purchased the islands. It was because former Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara declared his intent to have the Tokyo Metropolitan Government buy them. Ishihara, by the way, is a far-right extremist who would have done far more with the islands to antagonize China. by Alex Farrell]
Alex Farrell's thinking emphasises the unreasonableness of Japanese thinking. That is the totally obsession with themselves and oblivion of others. (By the way the Chinese can sometimes display the same trait, but with less degree, because they have to deal with others through out their history)
The Japanese society has always been driven by extreme element of it, be it working ethics (Karoshi "death from overwork") or military planning (WWII pearl harbour) or economic policy (boom and bust of lost decades).
Instead of questioning the right or wrong of this kind of extreme thinking, the Japanese merely moderate it. As illustrate by Alex Farrell argument. Is a far-right extremist right or wrong? From Japanese PM to average Japanese, I have not seen a single word of it yet.
The Japanese far-right extremists are saying a lot of other things, including some very frightening things. be aware, Australian, Dutch, American and you, British, who all experienced Japanese far-right extremist during the Second World War

Increasingly, I simply want these pieces of rock blown up and sunk below the ocean (With apologies to the birds and moss living there). Japan, China and the USA together make the 3rd, 2nd and largest economies of the world and this potential escalating conflict is truly, truly not worth it.

When Deng Xiaoping said to leave the issue of Diaoyu to the next generation, he really mean it.

Now that the leadership transition is complete, it is time to get tough and meet the challenges head on. China need to take an mutli-pronged approach to the reclamation of Diaoyu. The key to strategy on Diaoyu is to be persistent without being aggressive so as to leave the fault squarely on the Japanese side. The naval and air patrols into the regions need to increase with possible submarine patrols as well. Air patrols especially should dispense flairs near to actual island with media coverage. This will peak public interest and invite discussions on possible attack from JDF interceptors.

Next is moving fishing vessels into the region. This will demonstrate to the Japanese China's commercial interest in the region. Within month of the fishing vessels, cruise ships should be sailed in. These should be unarmed ships containing patriotic tourists. This is to solidify China's claim in the region while invite the Japanese to do something stupid and catastrophic. Should any of these tourist die from actions of the JDF, public opinion both inside and outside of China will radically shift against the Japanese.

It has been almost 77 years since the Marco Polo Bridge incident (aka 77 incident). Time has come to turn the tables on the transgressors.

Before that fanciful Chinese provocation happens I hope the US puts military assets in the area. Also the Japanese could and should make these islands a wildlife preserve, off limits to all fishing vessels.

I don't know the history well, but contents in this article sounds true, even if it didn't say all the story. However, that doesn't mean the facts support China's claim. I have an impression that the writer has an intention to mislead us. We should keep in mind that Okinawa and The Senkaku islands have belonged to Japan for more then 100 years. Why should we try to see any other irrelevant facts?

The writer simply writes some history and facts on the Diaoyus. You are the one trying to mislead people. You have nothing to support yourself. The fact is when Japan annexed the Diaoyus, the Japanese government was doing it secretly, without informing China or any other countries. They would never want to let any body know since they knew that the Diaoyus belonged to China. It took more than 10 years for the Japanese government to annex these islands. They finally annexed them 3 months (1/14/1895) before the Treaty of Shimonoseki (4/17/1895), only when they knew they were going to win the war. Look, they Japanese went passed the East China Sea to invade China,just for the heck of atrocity.

Yes, Japan's annexation of sovereign Chinese territory was famous for its secrecy. Hesitant to offend the Chinese, they quietly claimed the unpopulated and at that time worthless islands knowing that they would one day yield vast untapped fields of oil. More impressive still was Japan's secret annexation of Manchuria.

"They finally annexed them 3 months (1/14/1895) before the Treaty of Shimonoseki (4/17/1895), only when they knew they were going to win the war."

Seems the bureacracy was like "we are winning the war" and so Japan felt comfortable asserting control over the islands.

Interestingly there is no explicit mention of the islands in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, seemingly setting an odd precedent, just like there would be no explicit mention made in any future document or treaty, muddying the history of the dispute considerably.

The Diaoyu Islands belong to China.
It is so sad that modern Japanese have failed to understand their history, particularly the last 200 years.
Then again, when you only read the Japanese edition you are bound to miss the big picture!

When it is faced with natural resource deficit, Japan always have a tendency to take the aggressive stand. Just look at the 1st half of last century, when the Japanese' need for oil was ringed-fenced by the US and UK, they chose to go war instead of negotiating.

Similarly, Japan has only a few more years to go till their stockpile of rare earth elements runs out. It smacks of desperation. Hitachi, which had earlier made an offtake agreement with Molycorp (MCP) to buy their rare earth elements even before production, eventually reneged on their promise. Due to grave concern for the availability of this natural resource, Hitachi (HIT) canceled that agreement, and for practical reason, shifted most of their manufacturings that required rare earth oxides to China. Look at the inflection point where MCP's price started tank, after Hitachi pulled out.

This Diaoyu island conflict is nothing more than a resource deficit issue. Before the flare up, US-Japan, like two schoolyard bullies smarting for a fight, ganged up on China with a futile suit at the WTO. But I don't think they have a case. And they know it. Japan's brinkmanship over a tiny rock, which is closer to Taiwan than Cuba/Guantanamo is to Florida. Even the KMT on Taiwan is weighing in on this. Thank you for pushing the 2 Chinas together. They're closer than ever since 1949.

1) It's negative portrayal of American actions in WWII. (Does The Economist think that wars are won by politely asking the inhabitants if they would put down their weapons?)

2) By this article's tone (which seems more Anti-Japanese than than Anti-China), I suspect their logic on ownership has more to do with historic use than legal frameworks. By that mindset, The Economist would seem to suggest Okinawa is part of China, which of course is ridiculous.

Having said that, even before reading this article I have been leaning toward the islands being Chinese just a based on Japan's illegal action in 1895. This article only reinforces my belief in this. However, I do not support China's claim to any other island sets or general claims in the region with the other conflicting claims. The problem of course is that even if you can make a legal case for the island's being Chinese, it would seem as appeasement and green light China's policy of gun-boat diplomacy with the Asian nations.

The average American only knows of Okinawa, if at all, because of the battle fought there. Fine. But this article shows that there is lots of texture to the story and suggests that perhaps the U.S. view is rather shallow and short-term. I include my self in this.

I am not an expert in the history of the region, and can not detect a "tone" of anti anything. Only a real historian of the region could judge the facts presented and the analysis. Are you sure the "tone" you speak of is not discomfort caused by inconvenient facts???

What I can say is that we should try to avoid another armed conflict if possible. The Chinese always play hardball, and Japan is expected (irrationally) to back-down because of a sense of guilt imposed on them. We are two generations past WWII and it is time we recognize that the future is more important than the past. There will come a time when Japan will no longer back-down.

Thanks for the comment. I agree our view is shallow and short-term. I absolutely am one of them.

I don't make any excuses for individual actions or overall concerted ones by any nation(als) involved. I would suggest however that even any expert historian of with no particular interest in either outcome could present this story in a completely fair way. I agree that the information presented would seem like a good genuine attempt at presenting fact, but the tone is anti-Japanese (even if it is only speaking the truth). I can't and don't attempt to defend any past Japanese actions, but if I were an editor I would want to present the fact AND suggest a way that both sides could resolve the dispute - actually The Economist does this all the time in their articles, but why not here? See my point?

Having said that I absolutely agree with your position. It feels like history is repeating itself I'm sorry to say. China does always seem to play hardball, and as I said earlier I'm concerned what backing China's claim will do in terms of appeasement. Hopefully a face-saving solutions can be found.

BTW, check out this article on the possibility on irrational decision-making of the whole situation here:

Supporting Taiwanese ownership would of course be support for Chinese ownership given the US's one-state public policy toward Taiwan. In the long term that would resolve the dilemma as you say except, I don't see any legal basis for it (assuming the US eventually reneges on defending Taiwan). On the other hand, notice that the above article (as incomplete an unbiased as it is) does not mention Taiwan much at all regarding the islands. Also, in the short-term, do you actually believe that allowing Taiwan to develop energy prospects under US protection is the best way to calm the situation. At the same time it would only anger the US's biggest ally in the region and indicate to the rest of the region that the US is planning to hedge it's involvement in the region. Anyway you cut it, Taiwanese ownership of the isles won't work unless the international community knows Taiwan's final status, which ultimately leads us back to my last point about US allied leadership in Asia.

There are no easy solution here I suspect. Just difficult diplomacy and big sacrifices all around. If there were ever were a time when the UN ever served to exist, this is where it needs to justify it's purpose. The international community needs to intervene and prevent WWIII. Everyone involved, including the US, China and Japan need some humility at the moment.

The Diaoyus are not something up to the US to give to whatever the US wants. They don't belong to the US. Believe me, China will take back the islands for whatever price it costs. The US should learn from the mistakes it made in the past.

I agree it should not be up to the US, which is exactly what my last comment stated. If you are to unable to comment without holding back hostility then you don't help. Make no mistake that there are equal feelings all sides around, which is why your comments help nobody - not to mention why your comments add support to MORE US involvement in the region, not less. So I'd suggest you rethink your position Jim.

Based on the information presented in this article, China seems to have the stronger claim to these islands.

An elegant solution to the problem might be for Japan to convey title to these islands to China in an act of apology for Japan's long history of atrocious and brutal acts, including multiple horrific war crimes, against the Chinese people (among others).

And what will China pay in retribution to its neighbors for thousands of years of repeated invasion? If you did your homework you would know that China has repeatedly invaded other countries/cultures and is famous for is failed attempt to invade JAPAN. That's right. JAPAN.

My point is that there are no blameless players anywhere in the world and those who try to present their dog as the PURE candidate are only fooling themselves and the uneducated. Instead we should understand conflicts and their history and try to find a way to avoid more conflict.

China wants the islands in order to lay claim to as much oil and gas as they can. We all know this so why the intricate arguments to 'prove' ownership? The U.S. has an interest in the region and wants a peaceful resolution. Its presence in the region may prevent another conflict due to mindless nationalism.

You first say China wants the islands because of oil and gas. You then say China wants the islands due to mindless nationalism. Is oil and gas mindless nationalism? Can you make your mind on things? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Regarding the attempt you mention of China to invade Japan, are you speaking of the two attempts by Kublia Khan in the latter 1200s?

Some might take the view that in the centuries which passed since the 1200s, most countries of the world developed an ever-increasing understanding of the existence and humanity of other countries and their people, and as such, should have born ever-greater moral responsibility towards their neighbors, and a parallel greater understanding of the immorality of what by the 1900s were certainly understood and formally defined as War Crimes, of which Japan apparently committed many against China, despite being a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1907, among others.

There are abundant indications that during the Japanese Imperial phase, many peoples of other countries were regarded and treated as essentially non-human, and therefore not deserving of the humane treatment, almost as if they were some non-human species of animal. Cannibalism of POWs by Japanese soldiers during WWII would seem consistent with this very unfortunate point of view.

Well it is interesting that the writer got out to Iriomote. Not many people out there; hope he had a chance to see the feral cats.

Otherwise, Japan's formal incorporation of Okinawa was a little more complicated. It seems Japan either wrangled an aknowledgement of control of Okinawa out of China, or twisted a comment as conceding lack of authority over Okinawa. This stemmed from a massacre of Okinawan fishermen on Taiwan by aborigines.

"In 1874 the murder of Okinawan fishermen by Taiwanese aborigines had been avenged by a lackluster expedition to Taiwan, whose settlement brought Chinese Aknowledgement of Japanese control over Okinawa" ("The Making of Modern Japan" page 423)

As for Perry, I thought I read somewhere that he may have recommended annexation of Okinawa, seeing it as a great coaling station/supply depot.

As for Okinawa civilian fatalities, probably should have provided a range, for there are still disputes over estimates.

Population at the time was 463,000
About 80,000 had been evacuated to Kyushu before the battle
The US claimed control of 320,762 civilians in August of 1945

If the numbers are correct, fatalities would be a little over 62,000
(source "Downfall" page 72)

The problem is there was impressment of Okinawan civilians for military operations. Possibly about 39,000 were drafted in some way. While an overwhelming majority were likely killed, and several thousand captured, it is not certain what happened to everyone.